Arcane Arrester, What spells does it affect? Options

[pbangarth]

Wouldn't the number of hits be directly tied into the concept of 'damage', which is affected by the Arcane Arrester power for the one target?

How would you separate damage from the number of hits?

Peter

[Tarantula]

Wouldn't the number of hits be directly tied into the concept of 'damage', which is affected by the Arcane Arrester power for the one target?

How would you separate damage from the number of hits?

Peter

Read the description. It explicitly states force based effects (such as damage or paralysis) are halved. It then says the mage still adds hits as normal.

[hyzmarca]

It does not, however, day how many net hits the magician can add. Furthermore, it says that the spell is resisted as if it were half of its force (round down). Resistance tests are entirely dependent on net hits, which force only factoring into it as a limiting factor for net hits.

Though if you want to split hairs, it appears as if they might be suggesting that net hits over Force are discarded for the purpose of resistance but not for the purpose of causing damage.

[pbangarth]

[EDIT] deleted till I think through the two above versions. Replying quickly isn't always a good idea.

Peter

[Tarantula]

It does not, however, day how many net hits the magician can add. Furthermore, it says that the spell is resisted as if it were half of its force (round down). Resistance tests are entirely dependent on net hits, which force only factoring into it as a limiting factor for net hits.

Though if you want to split hairs, it appears as if they might be suggesting that net hits over Force are discarded for the purpose of resistance but not for the purpose of causing damage.

Lets do an example.
Force 6 manabolt, 6+ hits (capped to 6 because of force.
Our gnome resists. He has 6 willpower, and gets 2 hits. Net hits are now 4.
He didn't completely resist the spell, So now the arcane arrestor kicks in. Force based effects are base damage. 6 in this case. Halve that. 3. Now add net hits, 4. = 7 damage taken.

Since it doesn't specify how many net hits can be added, the normal amount can. Since it also explicitly states the force of the spell is not lowered, it does not cap the hits the spellcaster can get.

[Muspellsheimr]

Arcane Arrester affects all spells.

For the purposes of the character with the quality (& only that character, in the case of Area effects), the Force is treated as half for everything dependent on Force, such as Damage & Hits. The caster still suffers Drain as appropriate for the 'normal' Force of the spell.

Arcane Arrester does not increase the Drain value of spells.

There is no restriction on an Awakened character having Arcane Arrester.

Spells cast in the area of background count have their Drain increased by the background rating, but are otherwise unaffected (the magician suffers reduced Magic as normal).

Spells cast into the area of background count have their Force reduced by the background rating. Drain & casters Magic are unaffected.

[Malachi]

Lets do an example.
Force 6 manabolt, 6+ hits (capped to 6 because of force.
Our gnome resists. He has 6 willpower, and gets 2 hits. Net hits are now 4.
He didn't completely resist the spell, So now the arcane arrestor kicks in. Force based effects are base damage. 6 in this case. Halve that. 3. Now add net hits, 4. = 7 damage taken.

Since it doesn't specify how many net hits can be added, the normal amount can. Since it also explicitly states the force of the spell is not lowered, it does not cap the hits the spellcaster can get.

Following on this example, let's say the Magician really wants to take down that annoying Gnome right now.

Manabolt is cast at Force 12, with 9 Hits (the Magician used Edge, he's really quite ticked off).
Again the Gnome rolls his Willpower of 6 and gets 2 hits, leaving 7 Net Hits.
Now comes the damage, because of Arcane Arrester the base Force for damage resistance is 6 + 7 Net hits = 13. Ouch.

Note the very specific wording.

When affected by a spell (including a critter's Innate Spells),
the character - and she alone - treats Force-based effects (damage,
paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength. Note that the
actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced. For instance, a
character with Arcane Arrester targeted by a Force 5 spell would
resist it as if it were a Force 2 spell, though the spellcaster could
still add hits to improve the effect. Arcane Arrester cannot be
combined with Magic Resistance (p. 79, SR4). This quality can
be taken by characters with a Magic attribute.

[hyzmarca]

Lets do an example.
Force 6 manabolt, 6+ hits (capped to 6 because of force.
Our gnome resists. He has 6 willpower, and gets 2 hits. Net hits are now 4.
He didn't completely resist the spell, So now the arcane arrestor kicks in. Force based effects are base damage. 6 in this case. Halve that. 3. Now add net hits, 4. = 7 damage taken.

Since it doesn't specify how many net hits can be added, the normal amount can. Since it also explicitly states the force of the spell is not lowered, it does not cap the hits the spellcaster can get.

Correct. But, if the gnome got 3 hits on the resistance test, the spell would be fully resisted, because it is treated as a force 3 spell for the resistance test.

And Malachi, that isn't specific wording, That is very vague wording. There are umpteen different ways to rephrase that to make it more clear, one one or the other. Few add significantly to the word count and some actually reduce it.

[Muspellsheimr]

What that says is yes, Hits are calculated normally for the spell. However, for that character, the Force is lower, & thus the maximum Hits against that character are also lower.

[Tarantula]

Correct. But, if the gnome got 3 hits on the resistance test, the spell would be fully resisted, because it is treated as a force 3 spell for the resistance test.

No, it isn't. The force is not reduced, and as such, hits are not capped. You treat the effects of the spell as halved. Not the spells force itself. He would have to have had 6 hits to fully resist the spell.

[Tarantula]

What that says is yes, Hits are calculated normally for the spell. However, for that character, the Force is lower, & thus the maximum Hits against that character are also lower.

Negative. It says that force based effects are treated as halved. And gives examples such as damage, or paralysis. If the force of the spell was actually halved, I would agree with you, but it explicitly is not. Thus, there is no capping of hits able to be achieved.

[Muspellsheimr]

Arcane Arrester: Does the original Force or adjusted Force determine the Raw Hit limit for spells?

Synner
My ruling on this is that it the adjusted Force should limit hits as normal, however, the ambiguity of the writeup allows gamemasters to rule the other way if they want Arcane Arrester to be less powerful.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...t=0&start=0

Yes, there is currently room for you to rule it that way, but it can easily be ruled as I explained it, & that seems to be the intent.

Arcane Arrester: Under the ruling that the adjusted Force is the limit on the caster's hits regarding that character:

1) Does Arcane Arrester adjust spells that do not affect the character, but they must still resist, such as Invisibility?
2) In the case of Indirect Combat spells, is the Force adjusted as the spell is cast, lowering the Raw Hits limit before the Defense roll, or after the subject is hit, reducing possible increases to damage from Net Hits, but not the chance of being hit?

Synner
1) It is a innante and uncontrollable ability which affects all magic effects against the character including stuff like Invisibility and Heal.

2)The latter. I've already noted this one for a FAQ reply.

As there will be an entry in the FAQ for something that only matters under the ruling that the adjusted Force limits Hits, it seems likely that the errata will clarify the issue.

[hyzmarca]

No, it isn't. The force is not reduced, and as such, hits are not capped. You treat the effects of the spell as halved. Not the spells force itself. He would have to have had 6 hits to fully resist the spell.

But it is also resisted at half force. Regardless of net hits, a force 3 spell is fully resisted with three hits, with the excepton of indirect combat spells

[Tarantula]

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...t=0&start=0

Yes, there is currently room for you to rule it that way, but it can easily be ruled as I explained it, & that seems to be the intent.


As there will be an entry in the FAQ for something that only matters under the ruling that the adjusted Force limits Hits, it seems likely that the errata will clarify the issue.

But it seems that it will be only to limit damage done and not reduce net hits for purposes of actually hitting with the spell. From synners reply.

[Muspellsheimr]

Yes, & as such a distinction needs to be made for Indirect spells, & will be in the FAQ, this is not true for Direct spells, which thus means Hits are limited by the adjusted Force, not the original Force.

[Tarantula]

Yes, & as such a distinction needs to be made for Indirect spells, & will be in the FAQ, this is not true for Direct spells, which thus means Hits are limited by the adjusted Force, not the original Force.

Why should it make any affect at all? Indirect and Direct combat spells have hits capped by force. They do not work separately in this regard. So why should the arcane arrester cap hits for one type and not another? It shouldn't. If it does, it'll go on my list of stupid and badly thought out FAQ rulings that just cause more complexity in the rules for no benefit and yet another reason pointing to why the FAQ is worthless.

[hyzmarca]

Why should it make any affect at all? Indirect and Direct combat spells have hits capped by force. They do not work separately in this regard. So why should the arcane arrester cap hits for one type and not another? It shouldn't. If it does, it'll go on my list of stupid and badly thought out FAQ rulings that just cause more complexity in the rules for no benefit and yet another reason pointing to why the FAQ is worthless.

The key is when hits are capped. Indirect spells have two tests, only one of which involves an interaction between the target and the spell.

[Tarantula]

The key is when hits are capped. Indirect spells have two tests, only one of which involves an interaction between the target and the spell.

Indirect get a damage soak after the to-hit roll. Direct don't.

Why should indirect not be hampered on their to-hit roll?

Direct spell: Spellcasting + Magic vs Willpower/Body + Counterspelling. Damage dealt is Force + Net hits. If 0 net hits, no damage.

Indirect: Spellcasting + Magic vs Reaction. If 0 net hits, no damage. Else, Damage dealt is Force + Net hits, resisted by Body + (Impact armor modified by elemental effect) + counterspelling.

If arcane arrestor reduces force including net hits for direct spells:
Force 6 mana bolt with 6 hits. Reduced to force 3 and 3 hits. Target needs only 3 hits to negate all damage. Otherwise damage potential is 3-5P.
Force 6 flamethrower with 6 hits. All 6 hits count aganist targets reaction to hit with spell, target needs to make 6+ hits on reaction to avoid damage all together. Force is reduced to 3 for damage resistance. Resisted damage is Force 3 + net hits 3 + half impact + counterspelling. Damage range between 4-6. But defender gets considerably more dice to soak the hit.

The way I think it was intended, in that it only halves the damage aspect:
Force 6 manabolt, 6 hits. Target needs 6 hits to negate all damage entirely with willpower. Damage potential is 4-9P.
Force 6 flamethrower, 6 hits. Target needs 6 hits to negate all damage with reaction. Damage potential is 4-9P.

Against someone wtihout arcane arrester:
Force 6 manabolt, 6 hits. 6 hits to negate damage w/willpower. Damage range of 7-12P.
Flamethrower, 6 hits, 6 hits to negate with reaction. Range of 7-12P.

I think giving it the bonus of capping the magicians effective hits is not how the ability is worded, and causes significant reduction in the power of a mage against such a character.


To simplify this... All spells force 6.
No arcane arrestor:
Direct spells, damage range 7-12P
Indirect spells, damage range 7-12P elemental effects.

Arcane arrestor the way hyz and co. see it:
Direct spells, damage range 3-5P
Indirect, 4-6P elemental effects.

The way I see it working:
Direct spells, 4-9P.
Indirect spells, 4-9P elemental effects.

[Malachi]

100% times 1,000 agree with you Tarantula. If Arcane Arrester caps the amount of hits at the moment of casting, it instantly moves into the realm of ridiculously over-powerful.

I believe the key sentence in the explanation is that "the actual Force of the spell is not reduced."

[Muspellsheimr]

No, with it limiting the raw Hits, it moves into the realm of worth the cost. Without it limiting the Hits, I would never pay more than 15 points for it, and would estimate its value at around 10 BP.

If it does not limit Hits to the adjusted Force, it does little more than provide a highly circumstantial damage reduction - while undoubtedly useful, not particularly good. While the potential reduction is higher, I would in most circumstances much prefer a simple Platelet Factories implant. It would be more beneficial overall, & is a lot cheaper.

If it does limit Hits to the adjusted Force, it is now worth the cost, because it has a tangible effect on all hostile spells. It is not overpowering or a must-have by any means, because it costs 25 BP, & also significantly reduces the benefit if Heal, Armor, etc.

[Tarantula]

No, with it limiting the raw Hits, it moves into the realm of worth the cost. Without it limiting the Hits, I would never pay more than 15 points for it, and would estimate its value at around 10 BP.

If it does not limit Hits to the adjusted Force, it does little more than provide a highly circumstantial damage reduction - while undoubtedly useful, not particularly good. While the potential reduction is higher, I would in most circumstances much prefer a simple Platelet Factories implant. It would be more beneficial overall, & is a lot cheaper.

If it does limit Hits to the adjusted Force, it is now worth the cost, because it has a tangible effect on all hostile spells. It is not overpowering or a must-have by any means, because it costs 25 BP, & also significantly reduces the benefit if Heal, Armor, etc.

Compared to magic resistance, which for 20BP gives you a +4 dp against resisting things. Arcane arrestor as I see is quite worthwhile. Its a guaranteed reduction.

[Muspellsheimr]

It is a circumstantial damage reduction, for a variable amount, with effects on a select few other spells.

Magic Resistance (which I consider crap, by the way), is indirect damage resistance vs. spells, with an increased chance of resisting the spell entirely. Out of how you believe Arcane Arrester works, & how Magic Resistance currently works, they are at best equal - I would still prefer Magic Resistance in nearly any circumstance - even if Arrester cost 10-15 BP.


At 25 BP, it is not overpowering if the adjusted Force is the limit on spellcasting Hits, & is actually worth taking.

[toturi]

Get a Fomori. SURGE II - Magic Resistance and Astral Hazing. Make him a technomancer.

Damn tough against magic, damn tough physical, Matrix is his battleground. What more to ask?

[Stahlseele]

make him an mystic adept to get counter spelling and adept powers and make him a hacker . . aside from face pretty much unbeatable no? O.o

[toturi]

make him an mystic adept to get counter spelling and adept powers and make him a hacker . . aside from face pretty much unbeatable no? O.o

The backgrount count from the Astral Hazing would be bad for Awakened related stuff. If you go the technomancer route, you avoid all the complications and open up a whole new arena to do attack your enemies. Astral Hazing, Arcane Arrester and Magic Resistance is bad enough without Counterspelling.